Abstract
Argumentative discourse has a complexity that is not entirely captured by purely structural analyses. In arguments about socio-scientific issues (SSI), a range of dimensions, besides scientific knowledge, including values, ethical concerns, cultural habits, or emotions, are mobilized. The relationship between argumentation and emotions is now drawing attention of researchers. Our focus is on the dynamic interactions among emotions and scientific evidence. We draw from Plantin, who proposed that emotions are mobilized as argumentative resources alongside knowledge. The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers. The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants. Participants attended to the epistemic dimension, weighing evidence, and values about the choices, but the emotional framing took priority. We suggest that the analysis of this emotive framing may be a fruitful approach for sophisticated studies of argumentation beyond structural issues.
Highlights
ARGUMENTATION AND EMOTIONS ABOUT DIETSThe analysis of the structure of arguments—in other words, the number, quality, and relationships between components such as claims, data, justifications, or rebuttals—has yielded relevant insights about how knowledge is justified or, more generally, evaluated (e.g., Berland and McNeill, 2010; Osborne et al, 2016; Bravo-Torija and Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2018)
The goal of our study is to examine in which ways emotional tension frames the construction of arguments about vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets (ODs) with a group of four preservice teachers
The results suggest that the interactions between the group emotional tension and the evaluation of evidence drive a change toward a decision that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants
Summary
The analysis of the structure of arguments—in other words, the number, quality, and relationships between components such as claims, data, justifications, or rebuttals—has yielded relevant insights about how knowledge is justified or, more generally, evaluated (e.g., Berland and McNeill, 2010; Osborne et al, 2016; Bravo-Torija and Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2018). In this excerpt from episode 8, Blas explicitly acknowledged the conflict between nutrition and ethics, claiming that they should give priority to nutrition, with a rhetorical question (256) Bea, in her efforts to build a supporting argument for an OR, continued to develop notions about more or less “ethical” ways of killing animals; it may be noted that she lowers her voice when saying “to kill” (261), arguably ashamed of acknowledging that eating implies killing. In episode nine the debate was being framed in a life-death opposition, after Breixo challenged the other three members, who defended OR, to justify in which way that option would satisfy the ethical criteria for adequately treating animals: Bea and Blas’ choice of OR was implicitly based on the evidence. We interpret that the emotional tension framed the debate, which was essential in orienting the decision toward a diet that would be emotionally acceptable for all participants as discussed below
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
